This is a complicated case because federal law requires employers
to "reasonably accommodate" workers' religions or disabilities,
while state law typically forbids companies from asking job
applicants about religion or disability, according to The
Journal.

“The employer is kind of between a rock and a hard place on
this,” Michael Delikat, who heads the New York employment-law
practice at Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe,
told The Journal.

The justices agreed to hear Samantha Elauf's case back in
October, and in December "friend of the court" briefs supporting
her case flooded in from the ACLU,
several states, and the
American Jewish Committee, as well as gay-rights and
religious-liberty groups.

The main issue here is whether Abercrombie violated a
federal law that says companies can't refuse to hire people
simply because of how they practice their religion — unless
employers can show they're simply not able to accommodate those
practices.

An Abercrombie assistant manager considered Elauf a "good
candidate" but wasn't sure whether her headscarf violated
Abercrombie's so-called look policy, according to the EEOC brief.
That assistant manager consulted a manager, explaining that she
thought Elauf wore the scarf for religious reasons. The manager
said the headscarf wasn't permitted, even if Elauf wore it
because she was a Muslim, according to the EEOC.

Elauf didn't get the job, and the EEOC brought its case against
the preppy retail giant.

Abercrombie says it didn't violate that law because it never got
"direct, explicit notice" from Elauf that her religious practice
conflicted with Abercrombie's look policy.

"[A]n applicant or employee cannot remain silent before the
employer regarding the religious nature of his or her
conflicting practice and need for an accommodation and still
hope to prevail in a religion-accommodation
case," Abercrombie
noted in a brief it filed in the case.

"Abercrombie expends a great deal of effort to ensure that its
target customers receive a holistically brand-based, sensory
experience," Abercrombie's brief stated. "To Abercrombie, a Model
who violates the Look Policy by wearing inconsistent clothing
'inaccurately represents the brand, causes consumer confusion,
fails to perform an essential function of the position, and
ultimately damages the brand."